Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 5155035" data-attributes="member: 54707">I said expose. Bullgrit extrapolated a personal connotative interpretation of what I actually wrote, based upon what he thought I was implying. Which is fine, everyone does that on occasion. God knows I have. But then you also made an assumption about what I was actually saying based upon a faulty interpolation of what I actually said. You accepted his interpretation of my intent, as a third party, versus my intent. (I've done that too. I try to avoid it but I've certainly done it.) So let me clarify my actual meaning.If you're assuming that I said a novel should be used for pedantic purposes or even overtly pedagogical purposes, generally speaking, I don't think that's the purpose of a novel (though pedantic and pedagogical novels do exist). That is, I don't think a novel is the best medium to teach in the sense of teaching non-fiction material, or the teaching of facts, or even of definitional vocabulary. Nor do I think that's the purpose of a novel. Rather it is to "interpret facts" (among other things) from a particular point of view, the author's point of view, which the author then hopes he can convince his audience is a point of view worth considering, or even acting upon. (In other words a novel is an individual effort at interpreting life and what that might imply, whereas non-fiction is a corporate effort at interpreting life and what it may mean. It is very loosely speaking, just to use a comparative analogy, the difference between the Mystic and the Scientist, or between the Psychologist and the Physicist, though of course there are natural points of overlap.) An author (a fiction author) often expresses terminology connotatively, not denotatively, for his point is not to teach a fixed definition, but to express a particular point of view. To do so however he uses the bets terminology and he does not fear to use the best, most concise, correct terminology. (Though he can also sue the most expansive terminology, phrasing, grammar, syntax, etc.) To my knowledge there is no direct counterpart to leitmotif in English. In other words exposing the reader to a potentially new term, assuming his audience does not already know the term being used, is an altogether different proposition than lecturing on it or denotatively defining it with precision. Denotative definition, and the teaching of terminology in this form, is a function of non-fiction, not of fiction. The job of fiction is to individually (and sometimes corporately, as an act between author and audience) interpret language and events and images and experiences in a symbolic or impressionistic way. This is why fiction is so full of metaphor. But for a metaphor to work the reader must have some idea of the general definition of the thing. And that is the function of exposure and why the author exposes the reader to new things. To expand both his and the reader's base of metaphorical experiences. Metaphors, similes, comparisons, even experiential imaging is not possible in the first place without an exposure to the basic terminology being used, and what it implies.And English, especially, is full of terminology adopted directly from or borrowed wholesale from other languages. A large percentage of the overall vocabulary of English is imported directly from Latin, Greek, German (leitmotif), French, Spanish, and many other languages. Indeed to speak English is to be able to employ a substantial portion of Latin terminology and vocabulary (for just one example). Indeed the very term vocabulary is derived from the Latin term, vocabulum. We English speakers use much Latin even if we do so unawares on many occasions. And English is derived directly from Anglo-Saxon, and Old English and Middle English, Germanic tribal languages. So our very language is fundamentally based upon modified Germanic terminology and linguistic structures. You never forget your audience in my opinion by remembering the background out of which it developed, you pay homage to it by remembering that the language is full of both old and new terms borrowed directly from our past in order to better express what we desire to convey to one another. (Always also remembering the inherent limitations of language, for if language were not fundamentally imperfect then it would never be possible to misunderstand each other. As much as I love language, it is also naturally imperfect.) Leitmotif is a perfectly acceptable, precise term (as precise as language gets) from Middle and High German, the cousin tongue of our own language, and from whom we borrowed the term. It is no more foreign to English than vocabulary is foreign to English because it is borrowed from Latin. It may be obscure to some, but it is not alien in any way, nor a form of forgetting your audience. If anything it is a remembrance of how your own language developed. (Personally I think any time a language adopts a foreign or alien term, and incorporates it within itself, the term is no longer foreign or alien, and is acceptable for everyday use.)Most good novels by the way are full of terms that teach. Not by lecture, but by subtle exposure to new ideas. And that is the difference between fiction and fact. Fact is full of information and precision, fiction is full of meaning and metaphor. Both can teach, they just go about it in different ways.By the way I completely agree with this part of his statement and wouldn't argue against it at all. You use the best term to express the most perceive meaning. And sometimes you use the bets word, even if it is not precise, to express the fullest meaning. That is what poetry does a lot, trade precision for metaphor and fullness of meaning.I wouldn't argue that at all either. That's why I said this.Maybe you didn't see it or didn't see what I was implying. But a really good comic, or as they are often called nowadays, Graphic Novels, should often be literate. The best are full of language which is well written, and often complex and literary. At least some are. I simply used comic as a short-hand, connotative example of what I was implying, imprecisely, because most people will understand the point. Comparing let's say the Odyssey to comics most people instinctively understand that the Odyssey is the greater and more valuable work. Does this mean comics have no literary value, even a great literary value? (I think some do indeed have both great literary and artistic value.) No, it's just a short hand way of making a comparison between what most people understand as high and low forms of a thing.RW, that made me laugh too. Have you considered a Soviet wife's sister vampire on Jupiter who speaks Esperanto? It could save you a lot of hassle when it comes to using vocabulary.But more seriously I'd keep working on it. To me writing is 10% first draft, and 90% rewrite. By the way I wouldn't necessarily drop leitmotif, but I think Bullgrit has a point about possibly using another term or set of terms. To me the problem with the line is not the terminology used, but the construction of the phrasing. The first phrase clashes against the second. But that's not a terminology problem, it's a construction problem.Then again it is just one line. It is very hard to read one line and know how it fits against a larger section from the work. It sounds awkward to me, and to me, because I like harmonious, or to use a musical term, consonant language, it seems awkward to me. But then again it is just one line. But I have nothing to critique it against.I will say this. I disagree to a degree with Mark (assuming I'm reading him right), in the fact that I think terminology in fiction and poetry should be used to express multiple meanings, both metaphorical and denotative. So I have no problem with leitmotif being used to express both a symbolic and a musical value. After all, to me music is simply zymology in sound, and notes and phrases are simply metaphor in musical form. So I like the fact that leitmotif expresses two separate but parallel meanings.But to me the phrasing just sounds clumsy. And that is my personal concern. (Mark and others might have other concerns of more import to them.) But as I said rewriting is often the difference (and sometimes the only difference) between mediocre writing and excellent writing.  On the other hand I don't know the broader context, the surrounding writing, and so it is difficult to fully judge. And it is after all your own work. I offered my own criticism, others their criticism, but in the end use what seems best to you in the broader context of the story.Well, I'm gonna knock off and go watch SGU.I wrote fast and I'm sure I made some mistakes. But maybe you got the gist of it. Whether it helped or hurt, I don't know. In any case good luck and Godspeed with it.</blockquote>

Verification